Best distro?

Bard · 08-06-2001 2:00pm #1

Thinking of installing Linux on an OLD machine over the weekend (I think it's a bog standard 1st edition Pentium) to mess around with and maybe letting it act as a file server @ home.

Any suggestions for what the best distro of Linux is to use here? - it's a fairly low spec' system - XWindows wouldn't (necessarily) be a requirement but would be a bonus, natch.

I have a couple of different types at my disposal (basically, those that came with a Linux book)... not sure exactly of which ones 'cos they're at home but I'm sure as you mention them they'll spark off in the old brain here... I know I have Red Hat 5.1.

Bard

"Have a gorilla!" ... "No thanks, I'll have one of my monkeys, they're milder."

Lenny · 08-06-2001 2:13pm

well mandrake and RH are probberly most user friendly
afaik the latest edition of RH does your partition's and everything it's self, so there's no messy stuff for the new user.

logic1 · 08-06-2001 2:14pm

Well Redhat 5.1 would be extremly old at this stage. It's up to 7.1 at the mo. Redhat or Suse I'd always highly recommend. This topic has been raised a few times on the tech board but I don't think enough people agree for there to be a definitive answer. The three main runner would be redhat, suse and slack. I know a few peeps also like Mandrake but I wouldn't recommend it... ever.

.logic.

Ba$tard · 08-06-2001 2:14pm

Hey Bard.

It depends really on the amount of RAM installed! The more the merrier and it will allow you to use X-windows without massive HD swapping.

If X is only a desirable, I'd be looking at one of the Slackware distro's which is kinda known as the traditional text-orientated Linux Distro...

What do you want to do with the box? Use it as a Gateway or little monitor-less slave? If so, you don't need the newest & bluest...a year-old Slackware distro will do YOU just as good as a recent-release.

If you are running P1, I'd go for a kernel recompile just after installation and strip out as much support as possible so you have less over-head...do the same with modules with the Kernel configurator...

P.S. Redhat 5.1 would be fine. I think that is June 1999...T'would be grand...

Ba$tard

P.P.S...you can never have too much RAM

Bard · 08-06-2001 2:28pm

Thanks Ba$tard

(it just doesn't feel right calling you that seeing as you're being helpful and all

)

I believe it has 16Mb on board. Now that you mention Slackware, I believe that's one of the distro's I have @ home.

Kernel recompile? Stripping out support? Doing the same with modules??? ... er,... arrrgh!!! lost me there, mate!

All I want to do with the box is play around with Linux itself... possibly use it as a test bed web server... dunno. If you say Red Hat 5.1 is fine, I think I may go with that as it seems to be a (relatively) painless install.

Cheers again,

Bard

"Have a gorilla!" ... "No thanks, I'll have one of my monkeys, they're milder."

Lenny · 08-06-2001 2:32pm

I had RH on a p166 with 16Mb or ram, it was a bit slow, but I just made a good bit of swap space.

phil · 08-06-2001 3:23pm

Originally posted by Bard:
Thinking of installing Linux on an OLD machine over the weekend (I think it's a bog standard 1st edition Pentium) to mess around with and maybe letting it act as a file server @ home.

If I were you and I were going for a Linux distribution, I would be looking at Debian. After you get past the installation procedure (opinions of which vary, personally I like it) Debian is definately one of the easier and securer systems to setup.

I have Debian 2.2 (Revision 2) running at home on a P166 with 4 megs of RAM and a p100 with 40 megs of RAM (Funny I know, but one is down the country home and one is in Dublin home) The X-Windows system is running on both of them as well as other services such as Apache/PHP. On the machine with 4 megs of RAM I can even run Mozilla M-18 over X, and test PHP scripts no problem.

Debian's package management system is vastly superior and easier to use than RedHat's RPM. As well as coming on 3CD's (plus one non-US one, with SSH etc.) with most of the common packages you could ever want (apt-cdrom is you friend there, although installation does that for you automatically)

If you want a copy, you could do worse than to contact freecds@antefacto.com. If you can get into town, somewhere near Parnell Street then you should be able to pick up the CD's.

Phil.

dahamsta · 08-06-2001 11:31pm

Phil, you're obsessed with Debian boy...

My two OS's of choice are Red Hat and Mandrake. I've been running Red Hat on my servers now for a good three years, and it's a pleasure to work with. All three servers are rock solid, and for ease of use you can't beat it, because nearly everything is packaged as an RPM now. Version 7 has the Red Hat Network built in too, so all you have to do is run 'up2date -u' every now and then and you're bang up to date. Stick it in a cron job and you don't even have to worry about that[1].

Mandrake is my distro of choice on the desktop, they're way ahead of the rest. That said, I have neither Mandrake 8.0 or Red Hat 7.1, so the gap may have narrowed a bit in the meantime - I've heard from one person so far that Red Hat 7.1 is sweet.

I have Red Hat 7.0 and 6.2 here, as well as Mandrake 7.0 and 7.2, so if you want them just gimme a bell off-site and I'll burn 'em for you. I'm working on getting Mandrake 8.0 and Red Hat 7.1 at the moment. Soon as I have Win2K is gone for good. Day Day M$.

adam

[1] Before Phil jumps in and flames the behind off me, I should point out that you can do this in Debian too. Also, being "bang up to date" shouldn't be taken literally - you'll be up to date with Red Hat, but not necessarily with the applications themselves. It's an ease-of-use trade-off. Prime example is the current Red Hat PHP package, which is broken.

Ronin · 10-06-2001 11:32pm

RH has become simple to install over the last few releases. 7.1 almost installs itself these days. The only problem that your likely to run into with any of the distro's is that X likes alot of ram. Other then that if your just wanting to test apache and php and maybe mysql then you won't need to install X, althouhg you could always run an X server off your windows box and just export things to your windows machine via the network.

autorpm is a handy little feature, kinda like apt-get.

You might also look at freebsd which is also pretty straight forward and has the ports collection.

Debian is alright, although i don't use it that much.

Slackware i haven't used for a long time so i won't comment.

Whatever distro you want to use, decide exactly what your going to use it for and if its just services like apache and php then you should be fine. Best thing to do is play around yourself, different people have different experiences.

Oh and don't forget about security

.

Ro.

MiCr0 · 12-06-2001 12:22pm

yep should work a treat

Loomer · 12-06-2001 3:13pm

SuSe 0wns meh!

Bard · 12-06-2001 11:23pm

Ok- haven't had the time to do it yet, and Debian Linux isn't an option - the following are:

Red Hat Linux 5.1 or 5.2
SuSE Linux 5.2
Caldera OpenLinux Lite
Slackware '96

Security isn't an issue- it'll just be a standalone machine, purely for the purpose of playing with Linux.

Bard

I walk through walls/ I float down the Liffey/ I'm not here/ This isn't happening

NinjaBart · 12-06-2001 11:37pm

all of those distros are wayyy old I think. might be better off getting a more recent version from a magazine cover, or from someone here who feels helpful.

Did I mention that linux sucks?

MiCr0 · 12-06-2001 11:43pm

bard
if you have the inclination, time and the bandwidth, just download one of the disto's, which are free.

mandrake is v.nice, as is redhat.
i've got rh6.2 (apollo?) on a p75 16mb and its fine, x works too.

ftp://ftp.esat.net/mirrors/

[This message has been edited by MiCr0 (edited 12-06-2001).]

Bard · 12-06-2001 11:52pm

Originally posted by NinjaBart:
all of those distros are wayyy old I think. might be better off getting a more recent version from a magazine cover, or from someone here who feels helpful.

Actually, I think I may have a copy of Mandrake 7.0 on a recent PC Plus DVD... how does that sound?

Did I mention that linux sucks?

Yes. Yes you did.

Boo-urns to you!

Bard

I walk through walls/ I float down the Liffey/ I'm not here/ This isn't happening

JustHalf · 14-06-2001 8:40pm

I've got Mandrake 8.0 running fine (though perhaps *slightly* chuggy with X) on a P250MMX w/128Mb SDRAM, but I remember running it with only 32Mb RAM and clock speed at 200 and it was a lot slower with X running. X seems to be quite the memory guzzler.

Skeptic1 · 14-06-2001 10:07pm

Try and borrow a reasonably recent distro version. Mandrake 7.0 should be fine, but you should be able to get hold of a more recent one. ILUG has a library section where people kindly lend CDs.

Slackware 96 was the first distro I installed on a P120 with 16 megs of ram. Worked fine at the time, but it took me about a week to get X working and another week to get the internet connection going. I learned a lot more about computer hardware than I wanted to at the time.

With a recent version of RH, the whole thing takes about an hour from the point of inserting the first CD. You will be impressed with the speed of installation compared with NT Server. There is just a single reboot at the end and you're up and running.

With a modern distro, 32 megs is about minimum for running X. The window managers are a lot heavier these days. Even then stuff like netscape will push you heavily into virtual memory. 128K is my recommended minumum.

ObeyGiant · 15-06-2001 1:13pm

Originally posted by Bard:
Debian Linux isn't an option

Why?
I used to use (up until about 6 months ago) a 100Mhz 486 w/16M RAM for my gateway/firewall/file server. The hardware, apart from being old, was also very flaky, especially one of the memory modules. I must have tried everything on that, every copy of linux I could grab, the BSDs, even (for about an hour) Solaris. Out of all of these, the one that handled the hardware best, and gave the best performance, was Debian (followed by slackware and OpenBSD).

So again.. why isn't Debian an option?

boot_sect · 17-06-2001 1:42am

slackware

?
hmmm using debian rulez right? but, the packaging system apt yeah ? while it's nice and all yeah? can you really take your self seriously if you don't compile your programs?
1.

slackware

ok ?
2. DEBIAN||FreeBSD ??
www.limewire.com

BOYCOTT E$$0

[This message has been edited by boot_sect (edited 17-06-2001).]

boot_sect · 17-06-2001 2:12pm

Originally posted by ObeyGiant:
WCompiling your own programs on a low-spec box is a pain in the mickey, you're much better off with precompiled binaries.

bah... have you ever compiled linux on a 386? yeah but don't you like to control your programs and not have to muck around with apt-get dependcy nonesense? I mean automation like precompiled stuff is sort of the windows ethos right? The ethos of the blue screen of death and £1000.00 programs to make your coffee right? Anyhow the slackware tgz packages are precopiled too right? But it's kind of cool that slackware encourages the choice don't you think¿

anyhow slackware is better no contest ok?

slackware

ecksor · 17-06-2001 6:21pm

Good package management is a must have for properly managing a system.

Your "windows ethos" bull smacks of reading too much Linux propaganda.

JustHalf · 17-06-2001 11:20pm

And your spelling and grammar smack of JeffK.

ObeyGiant · 17-06-2001 11:57pm

What?

can you really take your self seriously if you don't compile your programs?

This isn't about seeing who can p1ss the highest. Compiling your own programs on a low-spec box is a pain in the mickey, you're much better off with precompiled binaries.

ObeyGiant · 18-06-2001 11:32pm

But it's kind of cool that slackware encourages the choice don't you think¿

man 8 apt-get:
source causes apt-get to fetch source packages. APT will examine the available packages to decide which source package to fetch. It will then find and download into the current directory the newest available version of that source package.

Choice *is* a wonderful thing.

Bard · 18-06-2001 11:47pm

Originally posted by ObeyGiant:
Why?
[...]
So again.. why isn't Debian an option?

... because I don't have it, and I've no intention of putting the time into downloading it. I wanted a recommendation and based on the distro's I I have on CD, I got good enough recommendations to go ahead.

At the moment however, playing with Linux is taking a back seat. There's just too much on my plate.

Bard

Fitter, happier, more productive.

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 18-06-2001).]

phaxx · 22-06-2001 7:45pm

My opinion is that if it has to be linux, it has to be slackware.

Otherwise I'd go for freebsd, possibly open, but I've had some nasty problems with it's terminal screwing up. If you're not going to be sitting at it, open seems fine.

I've only ever touched redhat/mandrake/corel briefly (thank god!) and I'd say stay away from them at all costs...!

phaxx · 22-06-2001 7:46pm

Originally posted by OJ:
well mandrake and RH are probberly most user friendly
afaik the latest edition of RH does your partition's and everything it's self, so there's no messy stuff for the new user.

Y'wha? Redhat now does your partitions ITSELF? ...

ppffffttt!

Redhat, hah!

schrodinger · 22-06-2001 11:59pm

Forget Linsux! FREEBSD!!!

chernobyl · 23-06-2001 12:07am

Originally posted by schrodinger:
Forget Linsux! FREEBSD!!!

Second that.
I mean what the fU|< does linux think it is?
it tries to be a desktop and server all in one and fails @ both.
Windows for the Desktop
FreeB for the power user.

Britany Spears Looking incredible

Keeks · 23-06-2001 12:17pm

The best advice i can give to you Bard is to try each of ur distros in turn. I'd leave out the Mandrake one if you want to use x-windows as the newer distros (imho) seem to be as memory hungry as windows.

Each of the distros u have are good ones from what i can remember. Just put em in a hat and pull one out and install. If it doesn't suit u try another. Linux (imho again) no mater what distro is less painful to install than windows.

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 23-06-2001 12:34pm

I'd go with Redhat, bacause it's common as muck

If you like Windows you should try Corel Linux, they've nearly copied the Windows UI and put it on Linux. (no bad Karma please)

OT: The Linux Router Project is worth a look too: http://www.linuxrouter.org/

jmcc · 24-06-2001 10:11am

Originally posted by Bard:
Thinking of installing Linux on an OLD machine over the weekend (I think it's a bog standard 1st edition Pentium) to mess around with and maybe letting it act as a file server @ home.

Slackware - the choice of sysadmins/power users. Not exactly a dummyproof installation. Closer to the older real Unix systems. Far easier to edit the config files manually. They are in the /etc/rc.d directory. If you are looking for a distro that is highly configurable and works well on a P1 then Slackware would be a good choice.

RedHat - the Micro$oft version of Linux

. Very easy to install. Tends to have some security issues straight out of the box. A newer release (currently 7.1) is recommended. Very good for learning Linux and very user friendly. The configuration files directory structure is more complex but good configuration tools exist so that editing these files manually is not generally necessary.

Mandrake - very nice installation. It really impressed me with the ease and simplicity though I did notice a bug when installing with Windows - it turned a W95 file system D partition into a hidden W95 file system. Again a newer version is recommended (8.0). Can use RedHat RPMs directly.

Just on the file server idea, you can run Samba to serve 'doze files and the box will look like an NT server though will be more reliable. You can also run Shoutcast so that you can have your own MP3 radio station on the network.

Regards...jmcc

Gavin · 24-06-2001 5:08pm

Originally posted by jmcc:
Slackware - the choice of sysadmins/power users. Not exactly a dummyproof installation. Closer to the older real Unix systems. Far easier to edit the config files manually. They are in the /etc/rc.d directory. If you are looking for a distro that is highly configurable and works well on a P1 then Slackware would be a good choice.

No comment on debian then ?

Mandrake - very nice installation. It really impressed me with the ease and simplicity though I did notice a bug when installing with Windows - it turned a W95 file system D partition into a hidden W95 file system. Again a newer version is recommended (8.0). Can use RedHat RPMs directly.

Hum.. i was under the impression that mandrake was derived from redhat ? Does that not make it too microsoftish for you ?

and are redhat config files not also in /etc/rc.d ?

Gav

[This message has been edited by Verb (edited 24-06-2001).]

teac! · 25-06-2001 9:36am

Originally posted by jmcc:
Slackware - the choice of sysadmins/power users. Not exactly a dummyproof installation. Closer to the older real Unix systems. Far easier to edit the config files manually. They are in the /etc/rc.d directory. If you are looking for a distro that is highly configurable and works well on a P1 then Slackware would be a good choice.

Right. Slackware is closer to the old UNIX systems. Oooooook. Highly configurable? What is more configurable about Slackware than say RedHat or Debian or any other distribution? "Configurable" just seems to be some buzz term flying about with the distributions. I hate to be spouting about Debian again, but it is the one I know best. Debian has MORE features than Slackware and is more configurable, considering all these features have to be configured.
That's not to say it's a bonus, although standard configurations generally work fine.
Go (con)figure.

Startup scripts are in /etc/rc.d directory? But hold on a minute, you were just advocating the configurability of Slackware. SysV startup scripts give miles more "configurability".

Slackware is not a choice for sysadmins or power users. Slackware involves much more work in setting up, Slackware is less COMPLEX (that's the word I think you missed somewhere along the line) to configure properly, however it generally involves much more time, because it doesn't contain or advocate a PMS (Nothing got to do with menstruation either; Package Management System), although to the best of my knowledge this is changing with an upcoming Slackware release.

Phil.

Ronin · 25-06-2001 10:29am

You just have to laugh at some of the comments above.

Once someone gets to grip with their installed distro then they can become a power user with it. All distro's can be tailered to do exactly what the user wants to do with them.Said user just has to be able to put in the time.

As to compiling your own source, unless your box is a production box 90% of the stuff you install on it can be precompiled and installed. Sometimes its nice to install things like mysql, apache and php from source just to make sure your doing everything correctly. But seriously its not worth the effort to download and compile everything from source. With FreeBSD you've the lovely ports collection which just goes and downloads everything for you. Do you actually read through the source code to see what it does before you compile it?

Why do most people like the distro they like? Well becasue they've spent most time on it and know it alot better, so they are happier to work in it because they know it better.

For low level stuff, server apps, it doesn't really matter which distro you use, as long as your willing to secure it. For desktop type stuff then its a matter of playing and find which suits your individual needs.

But seriously their is no best distro. There is a best distro for each user though.

Ro

jmcc · 25-06-2001 5:41pm

Originally posted by teac!:
Right. Slackware is closer to the old UNIX systems. Oooooook. Highly configurable? What is more configurable about Slackware than say RedHat or Debian or any other distribution?

Because you get what you want with Slackware. This is a pretty important thing when you are using a box for something other than just being a Linux user.

"Configurable" just seems to be some buzz term flying about with the distributions. I hate to be spouting about Debian again, but it is the one I know best. Debian has MORE features than Slackware and is more configurable, considering all these features have to be configured.

Most of these features will never be used by the users and a barebones Slackware installation is far easier to configure when you know what you want. The problem is that many people installing Linux do not know what they want and tend to install everything.

Perhaps it is just that my post was not clear as you pointed out that the complexity issue was missing.

Startup scripts are in /etc/rc.d directory? But hold on a minute, you were just advocating the configurability of Slackware. SysV startup scripts give miles more "configurability".

Yes and miles more scripts to fscking configure. As far as I remember, Slackware has about 15 scripts in /etc/rc.d/

Slackware is not a choice for sysadmins or power users.

It is. Where people want M$-like replication, they tend to go for Redhat or E-smith (which is Redhat based I think.). It is a good installation for newbies and also for those who are on their way to a higher level of competence. For a sysadmin faced with getting a box online, the time to secure installation is an issue. As a result, a clean fast installation is essential. Redhat and perhaps Mandrake are a bit too luser friendly in this respect whereas Slackware's installation is a very simple menu based system.

I suppose using Linuxconf is a good method but there will always be paranoid syadmins who do not trust such methods and edit the rc. files manually.

As regards Debian, I haven't examined it in depth but some people around here (Waterford) tell me that it is good. The package management issue on Linux is not that critical as it can use RPM (yes Redhat has even reached Slackware.). The thinking on the package management I suppose is that if you are using Slack, you should have somewhat of a clue. In the end it is like the difference between a hand tooled sniper rifle and an AK47 - same results but different skill levels required.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 25-06-2001 5:56pm

Originally posted by Verb:
Hum.. i was under the impression that mandrake was derived from redhat ? Does that not make it too microsoftish for you ?

The Mandrake installation was very impressive - it gave a time for the installation and it stuck to it - totally unlike M$. I wasn't installing it for my own use. I think there are 11 active boxes around here. The majority are Linux but some are dual and triple boot. As Adam said, Mandrake isn't Redhat any more.

and are redhat config files not also in /etc/rc.d ?

Yes and in /etc/rc.d/rc[0-6].d {This Explore2fs is a great program as I can access the Linux partitions on this box when I am running 'doze.

It looks like boards.ie has its very own distro Holy War thread going here.

Regards...jmcc

dahamsta · 25-06-2001 11:19pm

i was under the impression that mandrake was derived from redhat?

It is, but that was years ago. They've really gone their own way with it, concentrating on the UI. Red Hat has always been better on the server.

adam

[This message has been edited by dahamsta (edited 25-06-2001).]

Gavin · 26-06-2001 9:44am

I haven't used slackware really, apart from actually using it as a pose to installing and configuring in, so am not familiar with it's init script configuration. I'm assuming that it stores it's files in /etc/rc.d and uses rc.* as it's naming convention ?

I personally find the more SysV based system more logical. But that really doesn't matter.

What annoys me about your posts is saying that redhat, mandrake etc are

luser

distributions. That's ridiculous really. As ronin says people are more used to different distros and work better with the ones they are more familiar with. for example, can you show me something that can be done with one particular distribution and not emulated by another.
Admittedly some distros may be better at certain things than otherse, e.g apt-get seems to have more respect than rpm. But that is not to say that the equivalent could not be accomplished with redhat as with debian.

But my basic point is that, an expert in one distro is the same as an expert in another distro. If they do different things to accomplish the same task, and as well done as each other, then what does it matter.

Bah... I really have to work on my english and expressing myself.

Gav

Gav

jmcc · 26-06-2001 10:35am

Originally posted by Verb:
What annoys me about your posts is saying that redhat, mandrake etc are "luser" distributions.

Gav, read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I said that Redhat's and Mandrake's installation processes are a bit too luser friendly when compared to achieving a minimal Slackware installation. The same thing can be achieved with Redhat and Mandrake but it would probably take longer. This is not to say that Redhat and Mandrake are luser distros. As far as I know, Google is running on Redhat so this would make it far from a luser distro. ('course they probably use Slackware to admin all those RH boxes.

)

Regards...jmcc

[This message has been edited by jmcc (edited 26-06-2001).]

teac! · 26-06-2001 12:00pm

Quotes by jmcc

Because you get what you want with Slackware. This is a pretty important thing when you are using a box for something other than just being a Linux user.

Hah? Have you ever even used dselect? It's broken down package by package. Debian installations are VERY minimal, stuff like "killall" isn't even included, you have to add some of the utilities packages.
dpkg and apt-get however mean that if you actually DO want something new, it's trivial to install it.

Most of these features will never be used by the users and a barebones Slackware installation is far easier to configure when you know what you want.

Your problem is that you're pretentious. I know a couple of guys over in the States who work for RedHat. You should try doing a custom or text install on RedHat, it's very configurable, perhaps you should try out the installatoins on the distributions before shouting your mouth off about how unconfigurable they are.

Slackware is an alright distribution, I used to use it, however it needs to be brought up to speed, which is probably what the developers are currently doing.

Yes and miles more scripts to fscking configure. As far as I remember, Slackware has about 15 scripts in /etc/rc.d/

Well you can't have it both ways, take configurability or take a bit of learning. Just because you have never taken the time to sit down and learn how they work, doesn't mean that it's any worse than your Slackware method.

How so miles more scripts to configure?

/etc/init.d
contains all the scripts
then

/etc/rcX.d
contains symlinks to these scripts, where X is the runlevel under which you want them to run. There are a few more rules, but once you get used to it, it's nice, and much easier to stick stuff under different runlevels which are a redeeming feature of Linux for making different resources available to users.

M$-like replication

I can see your maturity about the subject of Microsoft doesn't extend past spelling the name right.

As a result, a clean fast installation is essential. Redhat and perhaps Mandrake are a bit too luser friendly in this respect whereas Slackware's installation is a very simple menu based system.

I accept the fact that perhaps RedHat and Mandrake are not the best systems for System Administrators, I don't use them for that fact, however Slackware is not a brilliant choice either.

Maybe you have some sort of a skill level with Slackware, however, using Slackware does not imply a clue, and vice versa is certainly not a clue. Much the same goes for using RedHat and being a "luser", I don't use the distribution, but I can accept the fact that people do (even though I do take the **** outta my housemate)

Phil.

dahamsta · 26-06-2001 1:23pm

I know a couple of guys over in the States who work for RedHat.

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? I know guys working in IBM, Gateway, Dell, Clarus, Oracle, etc, etc... what exactly does that prove?

*confused*

adam

teac! · 26-06-2001 2:32pm

Originally posted by dahamsta:
What's that got to do with the price of eggs? I know guys working in IBM, Gateway, Dell, Clarus, Oracle, etc, etc... what exactly does that prove?

`

Woops, mistake, was heading out for lunch, typing a bit too fast for me 'aul brain.

What I meant to say was "I know a couple of guys over in RedHat who could work out a better RedHat install than your Slackware one"

Phil.

dahamsta · 26-06-2001 3:32pm

What I meant to say was "I know a couple of guys over in RedHat who could work out a better RedHat install than your Slackware one"

Ah. Well, why don't they bloody well release it?

adam

jmcc · 26-06-2001 3:51pm

Originally posted by teac!:

Much the same goes for using RedHat and being a "luser".

It seems that you have a problem in understanding English. Read what I wrote! Luser Friendly is not the same as a Lusing Distro. Perhaps if you spent less time trying to be some kind of amateur psychologist and more time paying close attention to text then you may get some things right.

As for your claim that you know some people in Redhat who could create a minimal installations quickly: if these people couldn't do so then RedHat should fire them.

You must be one sad lowly user

if you have to criticise the use of a common abbreviation. Besides I have called M$ a lot worse. In many situations, getting a box online fast is important. At such times, faffing around like some prima donna over the merits of various distros is not an option. Most sysadmins want something that works and can be locked down quickly. There is a world of difference between the requirements of a hobbyist installation and the requirements of an online installation that will have to work 24/7. Think frontline Vs REMF.

Redhat has made some stupid decisions with their distro in the recent past and even Linus Torvalds has used a few choice words about it. Perhaps the fact that RedHat has had many security issues has made sysadmins wary of it. The newer Slackware distro is supposed to be better though the motivations behind the Slackware distro seem to be different to those of the Redhat distro. Slackware is more conservative whereas Redhat is aiming for market share.

Slackware, and most other distros have limitations. But when you are generating and publishing out a website with 40K + [1] pages every day, Slackware tends to do the job well on what would be considered old gear.

Regards...jmcc
[1] That's forty thousand pages.

dahamsta · 26-06-2001 4:26pm

LOL. (Alright, alright, chalm down, chalm down.)

To be fair to Red Hat, they appear - I can't say for definite because I'm still waiting on a copy - to have improved it drastically in 7.1. 7.0 was a pain, no doubt about that, and it carried over the insecure default installs from 6x, but 7.1 is reputed to be much more secure by default. The GUI is supposed to be much improved too.

I'm looking forward to trying it, but unless they've really gone leaps and bounds and Mandrake has gone into reverse, it'll stay on my servers. That said Mandrake has started talking about servers now, which seems a bit silly. They should stick to what they're good at.

adam

jmcc · 26-06-2001 4:49pm

Originally posted by dahamsta:
LOL. (Alright, alright, chalm down, chalm down.)

To be fair to Red Hat, they appear - I can't say for definite because I'm still waiting on a copy - to have improved it drastically in 7.1. 7.0 was a pain, no doubt about that, and it carried over the insecure default installs from 6x, but 7.1 is reputed to be much more secure by default. The GUI is supposed to be much improved too.

Well nobody has started screaming 'heretic - kill the unbeliever yet.'. RH7.1 is a lot slicker and the GUI is good - a later version of KDE (2.0 I think) along with Gnome.

Regards...jmcc

teac! · 26-06-2001 4:56pm

Maybe you should have a look at what you're replying to. I said I wasn't trying to defend RedHat, yet you keep attacking it.

My points about your use over the abbreviation of Microsoft, just proves my point about your maturity, or lack thereof. It's the kind of abbreviation that's associated with people who substitute numbers for letters, talk about assaulting machines, use IRC too much and don't read enough.

You skip over the parts of my posts that actually prove you to be wrong, and answer parts that you think you can argue with.
What happened to configurability? You advocate it with Slackware, yet when I show you a perfectly good example with Debian you knock it because "You have to change too many fscking files", I subsequently disagreed and you blatantly ignore it.

Your generic comments such as "The motivations behind Slackware seem to be different to RedHat's" don't hold much water. When you make a comment like that, back it up, provide examples, or at the very least expand.

Phil.

[This message has been edited by teac! (edited 26-06-2001).]

[This message has been edited by teac! (edited 26-06-2001).]

jmcc · 26-06-2001 6:36pm

Originally posted by teac!:

My points about your use over the abbreviation of Microsoft, just proves my point about your maturity, or lack thereof. It's the kind of abbreviation that's associated with people who substitute numbers for letters, talk about assaulting machines, use IRC too much and don't read enough.

Get real! You seem to have some kind of weird obsession with people using common abbreviations. You sound like a typical first year college student that wants to be taken seriously. This isn't college debating, it is the real world where problems have to be solved rather than debated. It is easier to type when discussing something on a BBS or Usenet. The abbreviation may, in your mind, be associated with crackers and script kiddiez. But that is your mind and to paraphrase Dan Quayle, a mind is a terrible thing to lose.

I like the inference by proxy that I don't read much.

You skip over the parts of my posts that actually prove you to be wrong, and answer parts that you think you can argue with.

I skip over the parts I consider to be your opinions, or right in some cases, because it is a waste of time to argue with them. There is a certain religious zeal about some of your comments and it is futile to argue with faith.

What happened to configurability? You advocate it with Slackware, yet when I show you a perfectly good example with Debian you knock it because "You have to change too many fscking files", I subsequently disagreed and you blatantly ignore it.

Terrible isn't it. Did you actually read the first message in the thread? It is about an installation for a P1 (Pentium 1). An old PC. This is not an all singing, all dancing installation. Slackware tends to work well on such old gear. You are of the opinion that Debian would be a good solution but how useful and easy to set up is it for someone coming from a M$ heavy background?

Your generic comments such as "The motivations behind Slackware seem to be different to RedHat's" don't hold much water. When you make a comment like that, back it up, provide examples, or at the very least expand.

Redhat is now a major business - PLC quoted on various stock exchanges but Slackware is not. Marketshare is essential for Redhat's survival. Redhat's bottom line therefore is governed by commercial concerns. Slackware is nowhere near as commercialised as Redhat and is not a publically quoted company. While this is not to say that Slackware is some kind of technological purist's installation, it is not driven by an overwhelming necessity to release or die. There seems to be a desire to get things right before releasing behind Slackware.

To paraphrase a writer that someone as literate as you should know: I would have made this shorter but I didn't have the time.

Regards...jmcc

[This message has been edited by jmcc (edited 26-06-2001).]

ecksor · 26-06-2001 8:05pm

Taec, you should just leave it. These guys wouldn't know a decent system if it kicked them in the ass

jmcc · 26-06-2001 9:03pm

Originally posted by X_OR:
Taec, you should just leave it. These guys wouldn't know a decent system if it kicked them in the ass

Which brings the argument around to OpenBSD Vs FreeBSD £$^%click NO CARRIER

Regards...jmcc

Best distro?

Comments